I really hope that Hillary Clinton, by some mercy bestowed upon us by an act of Fate or whatever, decides not to run for president. I know, I know, you've been ready since 2008, just seizing with excitement to continue the Clinton dynasty. Don't get me wrong, she has name recognition and experience, and it's long time that a woman commanded the Oval Office. We must ask ourselves, however, should it be this woman?
More below the fold, or at This Is Progress?
Clinton has a long track record in politics and business. Her earliest political escapades were in support of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, and as president of her chapter of College Republicans. Apparently moved by the Civil Rights movement, she decided to leave the Republican Party, according to PBS. She worked as attorney at Rose Law Firm, which represented large corporate clients such as Wal*Mart and currently represents large firms such as U.S. Bank and Bank of America. Hillary was, in fact, the first female member of Wal*Mart's board of directors.
As a United States Senator, Clinton voted to authorize the war with Iraq as part of the "War on Terror." She voted for the U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT. Clinton is tough on crime and favors the "death penalty, welfare restrictions, and a balanced budget." As Secretary of State, Clinton was even more of a hawk than Obama.
She's also really wealthy and is totally fine with giving speeches to Wall Street Banks for $200,000:
But in the years since, Mrs. Clinton has come under criticism for delivering speeches to Wall Street banks at more than $200,000 each, roughly four times the median annual household income in the United States, and for comments she made about her family’s financial situation, including a lament about being “dead broke” after leaving the White House. And she must convince a middle class that feels frustrated and left behind that she understands its struggles, even as she relies heavily on the financial industry and corporate interests to fund her candidacy. (NY Times)
She's likely to be another "talk populist, walk Wall Street" president, at least from her track record.
After being elected in New York to the United States Senate in 2000, Mrs. Clinton had another constituency to represent: Wall Street. In 2001, she supported bankruptcy legislation that some Democrats — most notably Elizabeth Warren, now senator from Massachusetts — argued hurt working families and single mothers, and they accused her of doing the bidding of the financial industry. Mrs. Clinton has said she worked to improve the bill. (NY Times)
However, Clinton has been said to be consulting Elizabeth Warren for advice on economic issues, and Robert Reich, creator and star of
Inequality for All, which could result in her economic policies pulling to the left. My worry is that she will be another Democrat who is willing to bow down to Wall Street whims on issues that will really harm the population. I doubt she's going to be willing to pursue a capital gains tax, a reinstatement of Nixon-era top-tier tax rates, or really do much to invest in infrastructure.
She is not the best bet environmentally, unless you include hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" in your concept of "green energy" because some of the flames spurting from your tap water have a green hue. As Secretary of State, she spent a good deal of time traveling the world, spreading the good word of fracking to countries far and wide, according to
Mother Jones. She has refused to give her position on
Keystone XL, which seems to indicate that she favors it and does not want to slap her environmental supporters in the face.
I just don't buy the idea that Hillary Clinton would be good for America's working poor, middle class, or communities of color. That's why I'm rooting for Elizabeth Warren to change her mind, or for Bernie to announce his bid as a Democrat.
Are you ready for Hillary? I'm not.